Big River Coho Salmon: Persistent low abundance … · Big River Adult Spawner ... Eggs Hydrology Redd Scour Risk Factor Score 51-75 Fair SEC Analysis ... Summer Rearing Juveniles

Histo

rical stream co

nd

ition

s in

Big

Riv

er watersh

ed

Photo cou

rtesy of Alan

Grass

Big River Adult Spawner Targets

Downlisting to Threatened

2,750

Recovery

5,500

•Mendocino County Location

•181 Square Miles Watershed Area

•214.8 Stream Miles Potential Habitat

•64% Coniferous

•14% Montane Hardwood Vegetation

•Moderately-High to High Erodability

•77% Private, 23% Public Ownership Patterns

•Timber Dominant Land Uses

•Moderate Housing Density

•Sediment, Temperature TMDL Pollutants

Big River Coho Salmon: Persistent – low abundance Recovery Goals Conduct spawner and/or juvenile surveys

STEELHEAD: YES

CHINOOK SALMON: YES

Priority 1: Immediate Restoration Actions Priority 2 & 3: Long-Term Restoration Actions

• Promote restoration projects to create or restore off channel habitats

• Retain, recruit and actively input large wood into streams

• Eliminate depletion of summer flows

• Modify two barriers on James Creek

• Develop riparian improvement projects

• Develop a sediment reduction plan

• Encourage landowners to implement restoration projects as part of

ongoing operations

• Protect and re-vegetate the native riparian plant community

within inset floodplains and riparian corridors

• Address road network to minimize rate of sediment input

Recovery Partners

Jackson Demonstration State Forest, CDFG

Potential Habitat: 214.8 miles Recovery Target: 5,500 Spawning Adult Coho Salmon

Preventing Extinction & Improving Conditions

Current Instream, Watershed and Population Conditions

Estuary/Lagoon

FAIR

Habitat Complexity

POOR

Hydrology

GOOD

Passage & Migration

VERY GOOD

Riparian Vegetation

FAIR

Sediment

POOR

Stream Temperature

POOR

Velocity Refuge

POOR

Water Quality

GOOD

Viability

POOR

Landscape Patterns

GOOD

Photo courtesy from left to right: Campbell Timberland, Campbell Timberland, KRIS Information System , Eli Asarian and Morgan Bond, SWFSC

Conservation Highlights

Agriculture

LOW

Channel Modification

MEDIUM

Disease & Predation

LOW

Fire & Fuel Management

MEDIUM

Fishing & Collecting

LOW

Hatcheries & Aquaculture

NA

Livestock & Ranching

LOW

Logging

MEDIUM

Mining

NA

Recreation

LOW

Urban Development

LOW

Roads & Railroads

HIGH

Severe Weather

HIGH

Diversions & Impoundment

MEDIUM

• Address season of diversion, off-stream reservoirs, and bypass flows

to be more protective of coho salmon

• Minimize increased landscape disturbance from timber harvest

• Develop a Road Sediment Reduction Plan

• Develop critical flow values to support to support juvenile rearing

• Conservation programs should be initiated to reduce current and future rates

of water consumption.

Future Threats

Reducing Future Threats

Priority 1: Immediate Threat Abatement Actions Priority 2 & 3: Long-Term Threat Abatement Actions

Potential Habitat: 214.8 miles

Recovery Target: 5,500 Spawning Adult Coho Salmon

•California State Parks, Blencowe Forestry, Trout Unlimited (TU), and the NOAA Restoration Center collaborated on placement of large woody debris in the watershed.

•Mendocino Redwood Company, the Conservation Fund, California State Parks, and Coastal Ridges have upgraded roads, and improved passage at undersized and poorly designed crossings.

Improved culvert crossing of James Creek. Photo courtesy of Mendocino County.

Big River September 2012

Figure 1: Map of Big River

153


Figure 2 Viability Results by Lifestage

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Adults Eggs Summer RearingJuveniles

Winter RearingJuveniles

Smolts Watershed Processes

Ind

icta

tor

Rat

ings

Big River CCC coho salmon- Conservation Target

Poor Fair Good Very Good

Poor= 35.5% Fair= 27.4% Good= 24.2% Very Good= 12.9%

154


Target Attribute Indicator Result Rating Method Desired Criteria

Adults Habitat ComplexityLarge Wood Frequency (BFW 0-10

meters)<4 Key Pieces/100m Poor NMFS Expert Estuary/Lagoon Panel 6 to 11 key pcs/100m

Adults Habitat ComplexityLarge Wood Frequency (BFW 10-100

meters)<1 Key Pieces/100m Poor NMFS Expert Estuary/Lagoon Panel 1.3 to 4 Key Pieces/100 meters

Adults Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratio<5% of streams/ IP-km (>30% Pools; >20%

Riffles)Poor SEC Analysis/CDFG Data

75% to 90% of streams/ IP-Km (>30% Pools;

>20% Riffles)

Adults Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating <50% of streams/ IP-km (>80 stream average) Poor SEC Analysis/CDFG Data75% to 90% of streams/ IP-Km (>80 stream

average)

Adults Hydrology Passage Flows Risk Factor Score =42 Good SEC Analysis/CDFG Data NMFS Flow Protocol: Risk Factor Score 35-50

Adults Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence >90% of IP-km accessible Very Good SEC Analysis/CDFG Data 75% of IP-Km to 90% of IP-km

Adults Passage/Migration Physical Barriers 99.1% of IP-km accessible Very Good SEC Analysis/CDFG Data 75% of IP-Km to 90% of IP-km

Adults Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) 40% Class 5 & 6 across IP-km Fair SEC Analysis/CDFG Data 55 - 69% Class 5 & 6 across IP-km

Adults Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA 0 SEC Analysis/CDFG Data ≥80% Density rating "D" across IP-km

Adults SedimentQuantity & Distribution of Spawning

Gravels 75% IP-km to 90% IP-km accessible Good SEC Analysis/CDFG Data 75% of IP-Km to 90% of IP-km

Adults Velocity Refuge Floodplain Connectivity 50-80% Response Reach Connectivity Fair SEC Analysis/CDFG Data >80% Response Reach Connectivity

Adults Water Quality Toxicity No Acute or Chronic Good SEC Analysis/CDFG Data No Acute or Chronic

Adults Water Quality Turbidity50% to 74% of streams/ IP-km maintains severity

score of 3 or lowerFair SEC Analysis/CDFG Data

75% to 90% of streams/ IP-Km maintains severity

score of 3 or lower

Adults Viability Density <1 spawners per IP-km Poor SEC Analysis/CDFG Data low risk spawner density per Spence (2008)

Eggs Hydrology Flow Conditions (Instantaneous Condition) Risk Factor score =42 Good SEC Analysis/CDFG Data NMFS Flow Protocol: Risk Factor Score 35-50

Eggs Hydrology Redd Scour Risk Factor Score 51-75 Fair SEC Analysis/CDFG Data NMFS Flow Protocol: Risk Factor Score 35-50

Table 1: CAP Viability Results ~ Big River

155


Eggs Sediment Gravel Quality (Bulk) 15-17% (0.85mm) and <30% (6.4mm) Fair NMFS Instream Flow Analysis 12-14% (0.85mm) and <30% (6.4mm)

Eggs Sediment Gravel Quality (Embeddedness)47% streams; 51% IP-km (>50% stream average

scores of 1 & 2)Poor NMFS Instream Flow Analysis

75% to 90% of streams/ IP-Km (>50% stream

average scores of 1 & 2)

Summer Rearing Juveniles Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent Impaired but functioning Fair NMFS Instream Flow Analysis Properly Functioning Condition

Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat ComplexityLarge Wood Frequency (Bankfull Width 0-

10 meters)4.26 Key Pieces/100m Fair NMFS Instream Flow Analysis 6 to 11 key pcs/100m

Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat ComplexityLarge Wood Frequency (Bankfull Width

10-100 meters)0.32% Key Pieces/ 100m Poor NMFS Instream Flow Analysis 1.3 to 4 Key Pieces/100 meters

Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Percent Primary Pools10% streams; 24% IP-km (>49% of pools are

primary pools)Poor NMFS Instream Flow Analysis

75% to 89% of streams/ IP-Km (>49% of pools are

primary pools)

Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratio<53% streams/ 43% IP-km (>30% Pools; >20%

Riffles)Poor NMFS Instream Flow Analysis


>20% Riffles)

Summer Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating 7% of streams/ IP-km (>80 stream average) Poor NMFS Instream Flow Analysis75% to 90% of streams/ IP-Km (>80 stream

average)

Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Flow Conditions (Baseflow) Risk Factor Score =75 Fair NMFS Instream Flow Analysis NMFS Flow Protocol: Risk Factor Score 35-50

Summer Rearing Juveniles Hydrology Flow Conditions (Instantaneous Condition) Risk Factor Score =42 Good NMFS Watershed Characterization NMFS Flow Protocol: Risk Factor Score 35-50

Summer Rearing Juveniles HydrologyNumber, Condition and/or Magnitude of

Diversions0.03 Diversions/10 IP-km Good NMFS Watershed Characterization 0.01 - 1 Diversions/10 IP km

Summer Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence 75% of IP-km to 90% of IP-km accessible Good NMFS Watershed Characterization 75% of IP-Km to 90% of IP-km

Summer Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Physical Barriers >90% of IP-km accessible Very Good Population Profile/BPJ 75% of IP-Km to 90% of IP-km

Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Canopy Cover46% of streams/ IP-km (>85% average stream

canopy)Poor SEC or PAD/CDFG Data

75% to 90% of streams/ IP-Km (>85% average

stream canopy)

Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) 40 - 54% Class 5 & 6 across IP-km Fair Population Profile/BPJ 55 - 69% Class 5 & 6 across IP-km

Summer Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA 0 SEC or PAD/CDFG Data ≥80% Density rating "D" across IP-km

Summer Rearing Juveniles Sediment (Food Productivity) Gravel Quality (Embeddedness)43% of streams/ IP-km (>50% stream average

scores of 1 & 2)Poor SEC or PAD/CDFG Data



156


Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Temperature (MWMT) <50% IP-km (<16 C MWMT) Poor Population Profile/BPJ 75 to 89% IP km (<16 C MWMT)

Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Toxicity No Acute or Chronic Good NMFS Watershed Characterization/CWHR No Acute or Chronic

Summer Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Turbidity>90% of streams/ IP-km maintains severity score

of 3 or lowerVery Good NMFS Watershed Characterization/CWHR


score of 3 or lower

Summer Rearing Juveniles Viability Density 0.2-0.6 fish/meter̂ 2 Fair SEC Analysis/CDFG Data 0.5 - 1.0 fish/meter^2

Summer Rearing Juveniles Viability Spatial Structure 75-90% of Historical Range Good NMFS Watershed Characterization/CWHR 75-90% of Historical Range

Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat ComplexityLarge Wood Frequency (Bankfull Width 0-

10 meters)4.26 Key Pieces/100m Fair NMFS Watershed Characterization/CWHR 6 to 11 key pcs/100m

Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat ComplexityLarge Wood Frequency (Bankfull Width

10-100 meters)<50% of IPkm meets LWD target Poor NMFS Watershed Characterization/CWHR 1.3 to 4 Key Pieces/100 meters

Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Pool/Riffle/Flatwater Ratio<50% of streams/ IP-km (>30% Pools; >20%

Riffles)Poor NMFS Watershed Characterization/CWHR


>20% Riffles)

Winter Rearing Juveniles Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating <50% of streams/ IP-km (>80 stream average) Poor CDF Vegetation Maps/BPJ75% to 90% of streams/ IP-Km (>80 stream

average)

Winter Rearing Juveniles Passage/Migration Physical Barriers >90% of IP-km accessible Very Good Population Profile/BPJ 75% of IP-Km to 90% of IP-km

Winter Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (North of SF Bay) 40 - 54% Class 5 & 6 across IP-km Fair Population Profile/BPJ 55 - 69% Class 5 & 6 across IP-km

Winter Rearing Juveniles Riparian Vegetation Tree Diameter (South of SF Bay) NA 0 SEC Analysis/CDFG Data ≥80% Density rating "D" across IP-km

Winter Rearing Juveniles Sediment (Food Productivity) Gravel Quality (Embeddedness)43% of streams/ IP-Km (>50% stream average

scores of 1 & 2)Poor SEC Analysis/CDFG Data



Winter Rearing Juveniles Velocity Refuge Floodplain Connectivity <50% Response Reach Connectivity Poor SEC Analysis/CDFG Data >80% Response Reach Connectivity

Winter Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Toxicity No Acute or Chronic Good NMFS Watershed Characterization No Acute or Chronic

Winter Rearing Juveniles Water Quality Turbidity50% to 74% of streams/ IP-km maintains severity

score of 3 or lowerFair NMFS Watershed Characterization


score of 3 or lower

157


Smolts Estuary/Lagoon Quality & Extent Impaired but functioning Fair SEC Analysis/CDFG Data Properly Functioning Condition

Smolts Habitat Complexity Shelter Rating <50% of streams/ IP-km (>80 stream average) Poor Population Profile 75% to 90% of streams/ IP-Km (>80 stream

average)

Smolts HydrologyNumber, Condition and/or Magnitude of

Diversions0.03 Diversions/10 IP-km Good Population Profile 0.01 - 1 Diversions/10 IP km

Smolts Hydrology Passage Flows Risk Factor Score =42 Good TRT Spence (2008) NMFS Flow Protocol: Risk Factor Score 35-50

Smolts Passage/Migration Passage at Mouth or Confluence 75% of IP-km to 90% of IP-km accessible Good TRT Spence (2008) 75% of IP-Km to 90% of IP-km

Smolts Smoltification Temperature 75-90% IP-Km (>6 and <16 C) Good TRT Spence (2008) 75-90% IP-Km (>6 and <16 C)

Smolts Water Quality Toxicity No Acute or Chronic Good TRT Spence (2008) No Acute or Chronic

Smolts Water Quality Turbidity50% to 74% of streams/ IP-km maintains severity

score of 3 or lowerFair EPA/RWQCB/NMFS Criteria


score of 3 or lower

Smolts Viability AbundanceAbundance leading to high risk spawner density =

0Poor Newcombe and Jensen 2003

Smolt abundance to produce low risk spawner

density per Spence (2008)

Watershed Processes Hydrology Impervious Surfaces <1% of Watershed in Impervious Surfaces Very Good SEC Analysis 3-6% of Watershed in Impervious Surfaces

Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Agriculture 0% of Watershed in Agriculture Very Good EPA/RWQCB/NMFS Criteria 10-19% of Watershed in Agriculture

Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Timber Harvest 26-35% of Watershed in Timber Harvest Fair Newcombe and Jensen 2003 25-15% of Watershed in Timber Harvest

Watershed Processes Landscape Patterns Urbanization <1% of watershed >1 unit/20 acres Very Good EPA/RWQCB/NMFS Criteria 8-11% of watershed >1 unit/20 acres

Watershed Processes Riparian Vegetation Species Composition 25-50% Historical Species Composition Fair Newcombe and Jensen 2003 51-74% Intact Historical Species Composition

Watershed Processes Sediment Transport Road Density 6.3 Miles/Square Mile Poor EPA/RWQCB/NMFS Criteria 1.6 to 2.4 Miles/Square Mile

Watershed Processes Sediment Transport Streamside Road Density (100 m) 8.7 Miles/Square Mile Poor Newcombe and Jensen 2003 0.1 to 0.4 Miles/Square Mile

158


Table 2: CAP Threats Results ~ Big River

Threats Across Targets Adults Eggs

Summer

Rearing

Juveniles

Winter

Rearing

Juveniles

Smolts Watershed

Processes

Overall Threat

Rank

Project-specific threats 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Agriculture Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low

2 Channel Modification Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium

3 Disease, Predation and Competition Low - Medium Low Low Low Low

4 Fire, Fuel Management and Fire Suppression Low Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium

5 Fishing and Collecting Low - Low - Low - Low

6 Hatcheries and Aquaculture - - - - - - -

7 Livestock Farming and Ranching Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low

8 Logging and Wood Harvesting Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium

9 Mining - - - - - - -

10 Recreational Areas and Activities Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low

11 Residential and Commercial Development Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low

12 Roads and Railroads Low High Medium Medium Low High High

13 Severe Weather Patterns Medium High Medium Medium Low High High

14 Water Diversion and Impoundments Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium

Threat Status for Targets and Project Medium High High Medium Medium High High

159


Central CA Coast Coho Salmon ~ Big River

ACTIONS FOR RESTORING HABITATS

1. Restoration- Estuary

No species-specific actions were developed.

2. Restoration- Floodplain Connectivity

2.1. Objective: Address the present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of the species habitat or

range.

2.1.1. Recovery Action: Rehabilitate and enhance floodplain connectivity

2.1.1.1. Action Step: Delineate reaches possessing both potential winter rearing habitat and floodplain

areas.

2.1.1.2. Action Step: Target habitat restoration and enhancement that will function between winter base

flow and flood stage.

2.1.1.3. Action Step: Promote restoration projects designed to create or restore alcove, backchannel,

ephemeral tributary, or seasonal pond habitats.

3. Restoration- Habitat Complexity

3.1. Objective: Address the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or

range.

3.1.1. Recovery Action: Improve frequency of primary pools, LWD, and shelter ratings.

3.1.1.1. Action Step: Identify historic CCC coho salmon habitats lacking in channel complexity, and

promote restoration projects designed to create or restore complex habitat features that provide

for localized pool scour, velocity refuge, and cover. Prioritize Core areas first followed by Phase I

areas.

3.1.1.2. Action Step: Fund a watershed coordinator.

3.1.1.3. Action Step: Install properly sized large woody debris to meet targets specified in recovery plan.

3.1.1.4. Action Step: Encourage landowners to implement restoration projects as part of their ongoing

operations in stream reaches where large woody debris is lacking.

3.1.2. Recovery Action: Improve pool/riffle/flatwater ratios (hydraulic diversity)

3.1.2.1. Action Step: Increase the frequencies to 75% of the streams within the watershed

4. Restoration- Hydrology

4.1. Objective: Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

4.1.1. Recovery Action: Reduce the number, conditions, and/or magnitude of diversions

4.1.1.1. Action Step: Identify and eliminate depletion of summer base flows from unauthorized water

uses.

160


4.1.1.2. Action Step: Improve coordination between agencies and others to address the season of water

diversions, off-stream reservoirs, and bypass flows to better protect coho salmon and their

habitats (CDFG 2004).

4.1.1.3. Action Step: Require compliance with the most recent update of NMFS' Water Diversion

Guidelines.

4.1.1.4. Action Step: Promote off-channel storage to reduce impacts of water diversion (e.g. storage

tanks for rural residential users).

4.1.2. Recovery Action: Reduce the number, conditions, and/or magnitude of diversions

4.1.2.1. Action Step: Assess and map water diversions (CDFG 2004).

4.1.2.2. Action Step: Request that SWRCB review and/or modify water use based on the needs of coho

salmon and authorized diverters (CDFG 2004).

4.1.2.3. Action Step: Require streamflow gauging devices to determine the current streamflow

condition.

5. Restoration- Landscape Patterns


6. Restoration- Passage


range

6.1.1. Recovery Action: Modify or remove physical passage barriers

6.1.1.1. Action Step: Modify two barriers on James Creek. One barrier is one-half mile from the mouth of

James Creek and is a bedrock cascade that needs modification for adult coho salmon passage. The

second barrier is on the North Fork of James Creek and is located where Highway 20 encroaches

on the stream channel and has created a barrier.

6.1.1.2. Action Step: Identify high priority barriers and restore passage per NMFS' Guidelines for

Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings (NMFS 2001a).

7. Restoration- Pool Habitat

No species-specific actions were developed. See Habitat Complexity.

8. Restoration- Riparian

8.1. Objective: Address the present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of the species habitat or

range

8.1.1. Recovery Action: Improve canopy cover

8.1.1.1. Action Step: Promote streamside conservation measures, including conservation easements,

setbacks, and riparian buffers (DFG 2004).

161


8.1.1.2. Action Step: Promote the re-vegetation of the native riparian plant community within inset

floodplains and riparian corridors to ameliorate instream temperature and provide a source of

future large woody debris recruitment.

8.1.1.3. Action Step: Ensure that adequate streamside protection measures are implemented to provide

shade canopy and reduce heat inputs to the North and South Forks Big River, mainstem Big

River, and Daugherty Creek.

8.1.1.4. Action Step: Develop riparian improvement projects along James Creek to increase canopy

levels.

9. Restoration- Sediment


range.

9.1.1. Recovery Action: Improve instream gravel quality and food productivity.

9.1.1.1. Action Step: Develop a Sediment Reduction Plan that prioritizes sites and outlines

implementation and a timeline of necessary actions. Begin with survey focused on slides and

other non-road related sediment sources in the watershed.

9.1.1.2. Action Step: Treat high priority slides and landings identified in credible landowner

assessments. Focus efforts in the South Daugherty and Chamberlain Creek subbasins.

9.1.1.3. Action Step: Locations for sediment catchment basins should be identified, developed and

maintained, where appropriate.

10. Restoration- Viability

10.1. Objective: Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

10.1.1. Recovery Action: Increase spatial structure and diversity

10.1.1.1. Action Step: Conduct monitoring activities to determine the population status of adult and

salmonid smolts in Core and Phase 1 areas.

10.1.1.2. Action Step: Implement standardized assessment protocols (i.e., CDFG habitat assessment

protocols) to ensure ESU-wide consistency. Prioritize Core tributaries first, followed by Phase I

and Phase II areas as appropriate.

10.1.2. Recovery Action: Increase abundance

10.1.2.1. Action Step: Work with existing permittees to rescue juvenile coho salmon that are under an

imminent risk of stranding and mortality and relocate to suitable habitat when deemed

appropriate by NMFS and CDFG.

11. Restoration- Water Quality


range

11.1.1. Recovery Action: Improve stream temperature conditions

162


11.1.1.1. Action Step: Plant native vegetation to promote streamside shade where otherwise deficient.

Focus on tributaries in the Middle and Inland subbasins that do not meet canopy target of 70

percent. Use CDFG habitat typing data/reports to determine tributaries that do not meet canopy

target.

11.1.1.2. Action Step: Promote streamside conservation measures, including conservation easements,

setbacks, and increased riparian buffers (CDFG 2004).

THREAT ABATEMENT ACTIONS

12. Threat- Agricultural Practices


13. Threat- Channel Modification


14. Threat- Disease/Predation/Competition


15. Threat- Fire/Fuel Management


16. Threat- Fishing/Collecting


17. Threat- Hatcheries


18. Threat- Livestock


19. Threat- Logging

19.1. Objective: Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

19.1.1. Recovery Action: Prevent increased landscape disturbance

19.1.1.1. Action Step: Establish greater oversight for pre and post-harvest monitoring by the permitting

agency for operations within Core, Phase I and Phase II CCC coho salmon areas.

19.1.1.2. Action Step: Assign NMFS staff to conduct THP reviews of the highest priority areas.

19.1.1.3. Action Step: Extend the monitoring period and upgrade THP road maintenance after harvest.

19.1.1.4. Action Step: Discourage Counties from rezoning forestlands to rural residential or other land

uses (e.g., vineyards).

20. Threat- Mining


21. Threat- Recreation


163


22. Threat- Residential/Commercial Development


23. Threat- Roads/Railroads


range

23.1.1. Recovery Action: Prevent impairment to instream substrate/food productivity (impaired gravel quality

and quantity)

23.1.1.1. Action Step: Develop a Road Sediment Reduction Plan that prioritizes sites and outlines

implementation and a timeline of necessary actions.

23.1.1.2. Action Step: Continue efforts such as road improvements, and decommissioning to reduce

sediment delivery to Big River and its tributaries. CDFG stream surveys indicated Kidwell Gulch,

Two Log Creek, and Saurkraut Creek have road sediment inventory and control as a top tier

tributary improvement recommendation.

23.1.1.3. Action Step: Decommission riparian road systems and/or upgrade roads (and skid trails on

forestlands) that deliver sediment into adjacent watercourses (CDFG 2004).

23.1.1.4. Action Step: Limit winter use of unsurfaced roads and recreational trails by unauthorized users

to decrease fine sediment loads.

23.1.1.5. Action Step: Use available best management practices for road construction, maintenance,

management and decommissioning (e.g. Weaver and Hagans, 1994; Sommarstrom et al., 2002;

Oregon Department of Transportation, 1999).

24. Threat- Severe Weather Patterns

24.1. Objective: Address the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

24.1.1. Recovery Action: Prevent impairment to watershed hydrology

24.1.1.1. Action Step: During Drought years CDFG, SWRCB, RWQCB, CalFire, Caltrans, and other

agencies and landowners, in cooperation with NMFS, should evaluate the rate and volume of

water drafting that could impact coho salmon. These agencies should use existing regulations or

other mechanisms to minimize water use during the summer months.

24.1.1.2. Action Step: Develop critical flow values that are the basis for minimum bypass flow

requirements to support juvenile rearing habitat conditions in the summer and fall months. Focus

stream gaging efforts on the South Fork Big River.

24.1.1.3. Action Step: Critical flow values should include minimum bypass flow requirements to support

upstream adult migration during winter months and juvenile rearing in the summer and fall

months.

24.1.1.4. Action Step: If predicted flows are below a level considered critical to maintain habitat

conditions for coho salmon, measures to reduce water consumption should be initiated by users

in the watershed through conservation programs.

164


25. Threat- Water Diversion/Impoundment


26. Threat- Watershed Process


165


Table 3: Implementation Schedule ~ Big River

166

Big River September 2012 167








174

Documents

Big River Coho Salmon: Persistent low abundance … · Big River Adult Spawner ... Eggs Hydrology Redd Scour Risk Factor Score 51-75 Fair SEC Analysis ... Summer Rearing Juveniles